Original
The Missing $16-Million Line
NJ Perham
Editor's note, Sept. 28, 2026 at 21:40: Since publication, the City of Prince George has provided documents showing that a revised version of the November 5, 2019 report, updated to include the George Street Parkade, was handed out at the November 18, 2019 committee meeting. That version contains the line described in the review. The city says its online agenda was not updated at the time, and that it will now correct its public records. We are reviewing the documents and will publish a follow-up article shortly. The original article below is unchanged.
The city's independent review of the George Street Parkade says the rising cost was, in part, reflected in a November 2019 report to council's finance committee. The report it points to, as published by the city, has no reference to the George Street Parkade or its costs.
The George Street Parkade was approved at $12.6 million and rose to $22.5 million. In June 2021, the city released a review of the project by the law firm Young Anderson.
The review's finding on what council was told, and when, rests largely on one document. We have compared the review's description of that document with the version the city published. They don't match. On the day we released this preliminary article, Sept. 28, 2026, we asked the city, Young Anderson, the former city manager and the finance and audit committee members to explain the discrepancy.
What the review says - The review states that a Nov. 5, 2019 report to council's finance and audit committee "included a line item for the Parkade indicating that the approved budget for the Parkade was $16,372,186.00, with that amount spent to date." Other than that report, it says, "at no time" was the escalation brought to council. It adds that even there, the escalation was not "readily apparent."
Council accepted the review's conclusions. The same lawyers later advised that an audit was not warranted.
What the city's public records show - The report, published with the committee's Nov. 18, 2019 agenda, says it lists every active capital project of $1 million or more. The George Street Parkade is not among the 46 listed. The totals add up exactly without it.
The report is signed by the city's finance director and approved and signed by the city manager at the time. The review identifies it the same way. The committee's signed minutes record no other version, and were adopted without amendment two weeks later.
Five months earlier, the parkade had topped the city's list of largest capital projects in its 2018 annual report. By November, with spending over budget, it was gone. It reappeared in the 2019 annual report in August 2020, at nearly $18 million.
What could explain the missing line - As the public record stands, the crucial line the review relies upon is not present in any published and signed document, and there would appear to be two explanations for this inconsistency:
1. The line never existed, and an account given by the city manager was repeated by staff, councillors and the lawyers without being checked against the published report.
2. There is a different version of the report, one that includes the parkade line. If so, several questions follow. Why, when and by whom was it produced? Did any committee members receive it, and when? And was it the version given to, and relied on by, the lawyers who conducted the review?
There might be a third account, and we are waiting to see what the city, Young Anderson and the committee members report back.
It matters either way. If the line never existed, an unchecked account became the official version of what council was told.
If a second version exists, there can be only one official record of what the committee was given. The published version is signed by the finance director and the city manager, and is the report recorded in the committee's minutes. A second version with different content would mean either the committee was given something other than the official record, or the review relied on something other than the official record.
What's at stake:
Nearly $10 million over budget. The parkade was approved at $12.6 million and cost $22.5 million.
The key evidence doesn't match the record. The only place the review says the rising cost was reflected, even in part, is a line that isn't in the report the city published.
The case was closed. Council accepted the review's conclusions and moved on.
The money has never been followed. The same lawyers advised that an audit was "not warranted given the costs of such an audit." On the public record, what was actually paid has never been independently audited.
The review's key evidence cannot be found in the city's published record. Until that is satisfactorily explained, only a full forensic audit can establish whether this was, as the review concluded, a failure of due diligence and disclosure, or something more.
While we are not suggesting any wrongdoing has occurred, at the very least an explanation is needed for why the $16-million line the review relies on is missing from the city's official published record. We have asked the city, Young Anderson, the former city manager and the committee members for their responses, and will publish a follow-up once they have had the opportunity to reply.
*Editor's note: The review and the documents referenced here relate to the previous council term (2018–2022). Several current council members were not on council at the time and were not party to the decisions taken during that period.*
Documents:
The city's independent review of the George Street Parkade says the rising cost was, in part, reflected in a November 2019 report to council's finance committee. The report it points to, as published by the city, has no reference to the George Street Parkade or its costs.
The George Street Parkade was approved at $12.6 million and rose to $22.5 million. In June 2021, the city released a review of the project by the law firm Young Anderson.
The review's finding on what council was told, and when, rests largely on one document. We have compared the review's description of that document with the version the city published. They don't match. On the day we released this preliminary article, Sept. 28, 2026, we asked the city, Young Anderson, the former city manager and the finance and audit committee members to explain the discrepancy.
What the review says - The review states that a Nov. 5, 2019 report to council's finance and audit committee "included a line item for the Parkade indicating that the approved budget for the Parkade was $16,372,186.00, with that amount spent to date." Other than that report, it says, "at no time" was the escalation brought to council. It adds that even there, the escalation was not "readily apparent."
Council accepted the review's conclusions. The same lawyers later advised that an audit was not warranted.
What the city's public records show - The report, published with the committee's Nov. 18, 2019 agenda, says it lists every active capital project of $1 million or more. The George Street Parkade is not among the 46 listed. The totals add up exactly without it.
The report is signed by the city's finance director and approved and signed by the city manager at the time. The review identifies it the same way. The committee's signed minutes record no other version, and were adopted without amendment two weeks later.
Five months earlier, the parkade had topped the city's list of largest capital projects in its 2018 annual report. By November, with spending over budget, it was gone. It reappeared in the 2019 annual report in August 2020, at nearly $18 million.
What could explain the missing line - As the public record stands, the crucial line the review relies upon is not present in any published and signed document, and there would appear to be two explanations for this inconsistency:
1. The line never existed, and an account given by the city manager was repeated by staff, councillors and the lawyers without being checked against the published report.
2. There is a different version of the report, one that includes the parkade line. If so, several questions follow. Why, when and by whom was it produced? Did any committee members receive it, and when? And was it the version given to, and relied on by, the lawyers who conducted the review?
There might be a third account, and we are waiting to see what the city, Young Anderson and the committee members report back.
It matters either way. If the line never existed, an unchecked account became the official version of what council was told.
If a second version exists, there can be only one official record of what the committee was given. The published version is signed by the finance director and the city manager, and is the report recorded in the committee's minutes. A second version with different content would mean either the committee was given something other than the official record, or the review relied on something other than the official record.
What's at stake:
Nearly $10 million over budget. The parkade was approved at $12.6 million and cost $22.5 million.
The key evidence doesn't match the record. The only place the review says the rising cost was reflected, even in part, is a line that isn't in the report the city published.
The case was closed. Council accepted the review's conclusions and moved on.
The money has never been followed. The same lawyers advised that an audit was "not warranted given the costs of such an audit." On the public record, what was actually paid has never been independently audited.
The review's key evidence cannot be found in the city's published record. Until that is satisfactorily explained, only a full forensic audit can establish whether this was, as the review concluded, a failure of due diligence and disclosure, or something more.
While we are not suggesting any wrongdoing has occurred, at the very least an explanation is needed for why the $16-million line the review relies on is missing from the city's official published record. We have asked the city, Young Anderson, the former city manager and the committee members for their responses, and will publish a follow-up once they have had the opportunity to reply.
*Editor's note: The review and the documents referenced here relate to the previous council term (2018–2022). Several current council members were not on council at the time and were not party to the decisions taken during that period.*
Documents:
- Young Anderson, "Review of the George Street Parkade Project" (June 3, 2021): PDF on the City of Prince George website. See paragraphs 34–37 (p. 11) and p. 19. The city's archived parkade review page lists it with related documents.
- "Financial Report on Significant Capital Projects" (Nov. 5, 2019), in the Nov. 18, 2019 Standing Committee on Finance and Audit agenda package: PDF, pages 15–17. Meeting page.
- Young Anderson, covering report to "George Street Parkade Project – Quantity Surveyor's Opinion as to Reasonable Cost" (Dec. 20, 2021): PDF, pp. 1–3 (audit advice on p. 3).
- Signed minutes, Nov. 18, 2019: PDF
- Signed minutes, Dec. 2, 2019 (adopting the Nov. 18 minutes): PDF
Comments
0 publishedComments are read before they appear. If one is withheld, the reason is shown here. Read the moderation policy.
Log in or create an account to comment. An account exists so a moderation decision can be explained to the person it affected.
No comments on this entry yet.
Get told when something new is published
One email per entry, usually one or two a week. No advertising, no tracking, and one click to stop.